The European Studies Centre hosted St Antony’s College alumnus and President of Iceland Guðni Thorlacius Jóhannesson on 27 February 2024. President Jóhannesson discussed his experience as a historian who challenged the Icelandic orthodoxy on the so-called “Cod Wars” – a series of maritime disputes between Iceland and the United Kingdom on fishing rights in the north Atlantic – and the challenges and dilemmas between the academic and the politician on the role of history, academia, patriotism, and nationalism. The event was chaired by Othon Anastasakis, Director of the European Studies Centre.
President Jóhannesson started by discussing his experience at St Antony’s. After a few anecdotes about his time at the College and his meetings with his supervisor, Professor Anne Deighton, he focused his discussion on his dissertation topic: Cod Wars. The Cod Wars had been the quintessential heroic tale of Icelandic national unity and had demonstrated that the strong will of a small country was mightier than the military power of the United Kingdom. They have been etched into the collective memory of Icelanders as a triumphant story and had become part of Icelandic collective identity.
The young Icelandic historian with an Oxford degree challenged that version of the history of the Cod Wars and – consequently – Icelandic pride. As a historian, Jóhannesson had been drawn by myths in order to deconstruct them and offer a more critical and objective perspective of history. He had seen the misuse of history through the creation of national myths by Icelandic politicians, and was thus entering into the midst of narrative battles on the role of the academic versus the role of the politician and between the passionate national truth and the impassionate objective truth. The perception of academics by the general public and the politicians in Iceland had been one of the detached and elitist professional pontificating from their ivory tower with verbiage that was alien to the common folk. They were seen with suspicion, and even more so were those “revisionist” historians who dared to challenge that national consensus.